The Inequality Problem

Posted by Maphesdus 11 years, 5 months ago to Economics
13 comments | Share | Flag

I thought this was a pretty interesting article.

All Comments

  • Posted by $ johnrobert2 11 years, 5 months ago
    Agreed, although I would not call it 'assortative'. Rather, I would call it 'associative'. Those of a certain strata tend to "associate" together 'and never the twain shall meet.' Mostly. I never seem to meet any of the 5%, let alone be relationally involved.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by mminnick 11 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Sorry about the poor typing. and even worse spell checking. I'll edit it to the proper Liberal. Again my apologies.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 11 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I find your analogy amusing... mostly because it reflects how history is repeating yet again.
    The Romans never thought "Zeus" existed; among their pantheon the Romans worshipped Jove.
    The reason why Christianity was able to convince the Romans that their gods weren't real was, in large part, because Roman society, like ours, had become agnostic in their beliefs, by the time of Christ. The Christians were able to put forward a religious philosophy that "fit" events in the real world, with proposed solutions that were rational per that same real world, and fulfilled the needs of the cynical Roman public.

    The same attitude can be found among the Romans with regard to citizenship, industry, art, morality, etc... just as you can find the same ambiguous attitude among modern Americans.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 11 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I think he said 'government should be doing MORE', not removing. Personally I think government shouldn't be 'doing' anything at all. That way I wouldn't have to drink as much.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ Maphesdus 11 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I think it just means removing government controls so that people have the freedom to produce and thereby improve their own social and economic standing.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rozar 11 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Oh man it's those vicious half truths that are killing morality across the nation! I watched a video the other day where some physicist was speaking about the corruption of government, which all sounded good.... until he started dictating what he thinks government should do!

    Every time I hear someone speak truth and then replace it with another lie I think of how the Christians convinced the Romans that zues didn't exist because christ is the real God.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by mminnick 11 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    There are many things wrong with the "analysis" presented by Mr.. Brooks. the most obvious is his statement "...growing consensus that the government should be doing more...". from the polling (if you can believe it) that I've seen and done some analysis on, the Libra/Progressive wing of the Democrat party demonstrates the growing consensus not the entire body politic.
    The base of the party wants more government the center right portion doesn't want it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 11 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    there's always a bunch of blah, blah new york talk and then the whammie:
    "Fourth, the income inequality frame needlessly polarizes the debate. There is a growing consensus that government should be doing more to help increase social mobility for the less affluent. Even conservative Republicans are signing on to this. The income inequality language introduces a class conflict element to this discussion."
    doublespeak.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by mminnick 11 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Why do you claim this? Simply stating it as a fact does not make it so. Please provide evidence with you statement. Something like David Brooks is not a reliable source because ...
    For example Mr Brooks uses correlation to equal cause and effect. Statistically speaking, this may not be the case and much care needs to be used when making such claims which I did not see in the article.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo